THE PARADOX OF EXISTENCE?

HOW intriguing:
WAS debating with someone about how someone might not have been born or come into existence had their ancestors chosen a different history.

SO if my ancestors had decided to do A instead of B, different dynamics would have come into play, who they married, where they lived, what religion they would have practiced, and therefore the likelihood of ME being ME, would not exist.

I could still have developed as someone "else" though, right? IF ancestor A married ancestor C instead of B and had moved to raise a family to Australia instead of North America, doesn't mean some DNA wouldn't have been passed down to me eventually anyways.

BUT why even contemplate the question?
IF I didn't exist, I wouldn't be aware of my non-existence so the point would be mute.
AND if I did come into existence, how can I envision how different I would have been if my ancestors went a different way than the way they did?

IT is to me, the same as the question of death.
ONCE I die, I will not have any memory of having existed.
OF course that depends on your religious views, but I am an atheist.

SO, in short, why would death scare me? ONCE I am dead, there is nothing to be scared of, I won't have a memory or any awareness that I had ever existed.

Death can only be scary if I though that there would be some "awareness" of my existence after I had died.

So, whether I might never been born had my ancestors done something different from what they did, or when I die, either case, I would not have been nor will I be aware of any other existence except that which I am NOW.

RIGHT?

Republican Assaults on Voting Continues

“The things they had in there were crazy. They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again.” -- the president commenting in March on democratic efforts to expand voting by mail to deal with Covid-19


The New York Times writes:

“ATLANTA — Georgia’s statewide primary elections on Tuesday were overwhelmed by a full-scale meltdown of new voting systems put in place after widespread claims of voter suppression during the state’s 2018 governor’s election. 

Scores of new state-ordered voting machines were reported to be missing or malfunctioning, and hourslong lines materialized at polling places across Georgia. 

Some people gave up and left before casting a ballot, and concerns spread that the problems would disenfranchise untold voters, particularly African-Americans. Predominantly black areas experienced some of the worst problems. 

Security experts had warned that there was not nearly enough time to switch systems before the 2020 elections — especially amid the coronavirus pandemic, which ravaged the state and scared away hundreds of poll workers.”

Republicans in power can assert until they are blue in the face that they are serious about preventing voter fraud and protecting elections and the right to vote. All of that is a lie. They are hell-bent on committing as much voter suppression as they can get away with.

An anecdote from Indiana

My sister-in-law lives in Indiana. She timely asked for a ballot to vote by mail. She has health problems that makes her want to stay out of public as much as she can to try to avoid Covid-19. The state did not send her ballot in time for her to vote. So, she spent time in a line with people mostly wearing masks. On the line, people without masks were handing out voter materials urging people to vote for GOP candidates.

In Indiana, electioneering at polling places is illegal.[1] The GOP doesn't care about that, or it gets as close to the line of legality as its minions are willing to get, 50 feet away from the door in this case. 

Again, there is no evidence the GOP is working to protect voters and their right to access voting options. The evidence points in the opposite direction.

One can only wonder if voters who take the pamphlets into the voting area are breaking the law is the pamphlets are clear about supporting the GOP and others can read that.

An opinion from Iowa

An editorial in the Des Moines Register comments:

“Republican state lawmakers are on a mission: Make it as difficult as possible for Iowans to vote. 

Their latest effort to fulfill this mission came in the form of a last-minute 30-page amendment to a previously simple, noncontroversial bill. Sen. Roby Smith, R-Davenport, said the new legislation, passed along party lines after a contentious late-night debate, is intended to support “safe, secure and reliable elections.”

It is not. Iowa already has safe, secure and reliable elections.

The goal is voter suppression.

The bill, among other things, prohibits the secretary of state from mailing absentee ballot requests to Iowans without a written voter request. 

In other words, it would prevent the current secretary, Republican Paul Pate, from doing exactly what he recently did. To promote voting by mail during the coronavirus pandemic, he sent mail-in ballot request forms for the June 2 primary to all registered voters in the state.”

Fortunately in the case of Iowa, GOP voter suppression efforts may be backfiring. The writer goes on to point out that mostly the same group that passed an unnecessary Voter ID law based on a false claim of voter fraud. That GOP effort “resulted in confusion, court challenges and hurdles to voting.” 

It is reasonable to expect GOP state legislatures from doing everything they can to suppress votes in advance of the November 2020 election.

Nationwide

NBC news reports that the GOP and the president's campaign is planning to recruiting about 50,000 poll watcher volunteers. The GOP wants to police who votes and how. The effort includes a $20 million fund for legal battles and the GOP's first national poll-patrol operation in nearly 40 years. NBC writes:

“While poll watching is an ordinary part of elections — both parties do it — voting rights advocates worry that such a moneyed, large-scale offensive by the Republicans will intimidate and target minority voters who tend to vote Democratic and chill turnout in a pivotal contest already upended by the coronavirus pandemic. 

Some states allow poll monitors to challenge a voter's eligibility, requiring that person's ballot undergo additional vetting to be counted. In Michigan, for example, a challenged voter will be removed from line and questioned about their citizenship, age, residency and date of voter registration if, according to election rules, a vote challenger has "good reason" to believe they are not eligible. They are required to take an oath attesting that their answers are true and are given a special ballot. 

The Trump campaign says the aim is to prevent voter fraud before it happens, despite researchers, academics and the president's own voter fraud commission all failing to find evidence that widespread fraud exists in years of searching. 

But a coordinated poll-watch effort, advocates warned, is particularly dangerous because of the GOP's history of using monitors to intimidate minority voters.”

It looks like we are headed into some serious voter suppression in the coming months.

Footnote:

1. Indiana public media comments: “At all polling locations in Indiana, it is illegal to engage in "electioneering," which simply means expressing support or opposition to any candidate or political party or public question. This includes something as simple as wearing a t-shirt or button with a candidate logo. It also applies to what might be considered "voter intimidation," such as harassing voters headed into a polling place. The rules apply to the polling place directly and to the "chute," which is 50 feet from any entrance to a polling place.”

The GOP goal for 2020 elections

A Review of Police Racism and Abuse and the Failed System that Enables It

The 33½ minute video by John Oliver and the 8½ minute by Trevor Noah summarizes the racist abuse of power situation by police. The video clips and accompanying facts and context helps to keep the severity of the situation in mind. Many American police forces are out of control to some unacceptable extent. Unfortunately, it is not clear that many politicians get it. Another point to keep in mind is that society asks the police to do things they are not trained to do and probably usually do not have the temperament to do.

America simply has to do better than this. American police must be made to be transparent and accountable, no matter how much paperwork it causes and no matter how long people keep protesting peacefully in the streets. And, America really needs to vote the president out of office.

If you don't want to listen to most of this, and it is pretty depressing, just listen to the last ~4 minutes of the 33½ minute John Oliver video. That helps explain some history and how the situation is seen from a very angry but articulate black person's point of view.

Staying in the news loop...

Where do you get the bulk of your news?  If multiple outlets, give percentage breakdown.
How much do you "trust" your source(s)?  What source(s) do you "distrust" the most?

Some examples to choose from:

• FB
• Twitter
• Newspaper
• Magazines
• Cable TV
• Network TV
• Friends
• Late nite shows
• Podcasts
• Talk radio
• Other

Thanks for posting and recommending.

Moral Utilitarianism: Good, Evil or Context-Sensitive?

To destroy a man there should certainly be some better reason than mere dislike to his taste, let that dislike be ever so strong. -- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) arguing against persecution of homosexuals


On the NPR program Hidden Brain program, host Shankar Vedantam looks into a moral mindset called utilitarianism. The program, Justifying The Means: What It Means To Treat All Suffering Equally, is a 55 minute broadcast segment. Vedantam interviews the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who is now the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Princeton University Center for Human Values.


Long story short, the utilitarian Singer believes that applying cold utilitarianism (logic and math, not personal qualms, applied to more happiness or less suffering) to difficult situations is more moral than other moral ideologies. Part of his logic is that our minds are biased and do flawed thinking and that isn't a rational basis from which to evaluate morality or moral choices. He believes that there are situations where some deeply immoral acts justify greater ends. An example that Singer cites gets right to the point. Is it moral for a person to torture a young, innocent child to a painful death if it leads to a world where all children are treated well and live healthy childhoods forever after? Singer says it is, but he cannot say that he would be able to bring himself to be the torturer.

In essence, what Singer believes is that moral thinking should consider what will most reduce suffering among the most, while increasing happiness the most for the most. Singer argues that the ends can justifying the means if one treats all suffering equally. He extends that to treatment of animals, which led him to morph into a vegetarian. But if one sets any concern for plants or non-human animals aside and just focuses on humans, is it moral to harm or kill one or two to save some or millions of others?

This line of logic arguably falls apart when doing something bad to one or a few would help one or the same number of people. What Singer points out is that humans have an innate tendency to avoid killing one innocent to save many others.

Some have called Singer a moral monster. Is he?

Philosophical questions

https://conversationstartersworld.com/philosophical-questions/

 I know very few, if any, will read from this link because it is exhaustive and comprehensive, and I am only posting the link for the curious and as a reference point AND to ask a simple question.

This simple question is this one:

At what point do we stop thinking in broader terms, decide to live within our comfort zones, and accept what we have been taught and/or what we believe to be true and leave it at that?

I find as I grow older, I am like most human beings, I have made up my mind about certain things and don't want to know MORE or consider alternative ideas.

And I really don't want to contemplate "Philosophical questions", the nature of existence or the universe or the nature of "man" (or humankind to be political correct).

On the other hand some of the thoughts presented in the above link DO make me wonder or ponder, so I might consider some the questions posed, but only to a limit.

Others immerse themselves into Philosophical questions, and are successful in better understanding the human condition and the larger picture of life and existence, while others end up philosophizing themselves into circles and are no better off for all their contemplations than if they didn't bother with so much contemplation.

Thirst for knowledge and expanding your mind vs comfort and acceptance?

Personally I find that distinction FAR TOO SIMPLE, it may simple come down to how we are wired.

SO back to my question:

At what point do we stop thinking in broader terms, decide to live within our comfort zones, and accept what we have been taught and/or what we believe to be true and leave it at that?